[DeBoom]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Guns were designed for use on the battlefield to kill soldiers, period. Any other uses that people came up with afterwards is another discussion. DVD players were designed for you to watch movies, not to bludgeon other people with. Baseball bats were designed to play a game. Lead pipes were designed for plumbing uses.

As I have already explained it doesn't matter what something was meant to do it matters what it is used to do. Let me ask you this: If someone was beating you over the head with a baseball bat would you be okay with that because the bat is was designed to play baseball? Obviously not because it is how it is being used that is important. The number of legal guns used in crimes in tiny compared to the number of legal guns in Canada. So why are we limiting what law abiding citizens can do just because of a few bad incidences? There is a clear double standard between guns and cars/alcohol/smoking/swimming pools.

$1:

I didn't think you wanted a discussion about registering everything that can kill a person if thrown at them. If that's the case, we'd pretty much have to register almost everything we own, from telephone books to pens to frying pans to you name it. Likewise, if we're going to talk about a registry for everything that could be used to commit a crime, then I'd guess that we'd spend 24 hours a day dealing with the bureaucracy of it.

Exactly my point. It is ludicrous to register every potentially deadly object even though knives are responsible for as many murders as guns are but we don't register them. There's a clear double standard here.

$1:

DeBoom DeBoom:

bootlegga bootlegga:

In Canada, it would be incredibly difficult to obtain such weapons simply because they are already prohibited weapons and have been so for a long, long time. Perhaps in Canada, if they had mob ties, knew some Asian gang members or black marketeers it might have been barely possible, but because all of those sorts of weapons have been banned for a long time, it is still highly unlikely that they could have obtained them in the first place.

Really? We have a long and open border with country that has the most guns in the world and you think it would be hard to acquire an illegal gun? The drug dealers don't seem to have a problem and their product can be smelt by dogs. That might also be a surprise to the gangs who seem to have no trouble getting illegal guns from the states. Most crime guns come from the US.

Yes, and most smuggled weapons from the US are PISTOLS, not assault rifles.

The point is that nowadays, unless you are well connected in the criminal world, you aren't going to be able to buy an automatic weapon, which most people who use guns in the heat of the moment (like for school shootings - Dawson College, Taber, etc) do not have access to and/or aren't familiar with.

Prove me wrong and go buy yourself a Tec 9 or an AK-47.

I'm not saying you can just go out and buy one but it certainly isn't out of the question to get automatic weapons in Canada. With enough money and a little persistence its defiantly possible. Failing that one can always smuggle their own in.

$1:

DeBoom DeBoom:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Wrong. Given that he entered the school with hundreds of rounds for his rifle, the intent was there, just not the ability to carry it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._R._Myer ... l_shooting

He got taken down by a gym teacher after shooting at 3 people. Hardly a stunning display of skill. The real reason few people got hurt was he let the teacher get the drop on him. Him only having a semi-auto wouldn't have made one bit of difference if the teacher didn't get the drop on him. And Virgina Tech was done with semi-auto and had a much higher death toll than Columbine. It matters much more how the weapon is used than what the weapon is.

I never said anything about his skill, just his intent.

Had he been better armed, Taber could easily have been much worse. If he had a Tec 9 like those douchebags in Columbine, maybe that teacher would have been killed trying to stop him. Or maybe he would have killed/wounded more people than the one he did, simply by spraying and praying.

He had a semi-auto, that's more than enough to stop anyone from charging and disarming a shooter. Spraying and praying would have most likely ended with 190 of his 200 rounds in the walls and ceilings and the other ten in people. Taking proper aim with a semi would have probably resulted in many more shot.

$1:

And right there you show you don't know squat about gun control in Canada.

High capacity magazines (more than 5 rounds) are illegal in Canada, and have been since the Lepine massacre at Ecole Polytechinque.

And double taping magazines? All that usually accomplishes are bent feed mechanisms on the mags. Ask anyone real soldier how many double taped mags they've used. Everyone I've ever talked to laughs when they see someone do something that stupid in a movie.

I do know about the mag limit, in fact I discussed it in another post. Even if I didn't it doesn't matter at all to the point I was making. The 3 30 round mags could have been 18 5 round mags and it wouldn't change the substance of the post. And here's a shocker for you someone on a shooting spree might not care what the law says.

So I made a small spelling mistake, you should have been able to figure it out from the context of the post what I was trying to say.

Do you care to address the argument or just pick on spelling mistakes?

[DeBoom]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Most Canadians however, if shown an AK-47 and a 30-06 rifle and asked which is okay for gun owners to possess, many would say the 30-06 is okay and not the AK-47.

Which says more about the ignorance of most Canadians than it does about what is a rational gun law.

$1:

However, it is still legal to own an assault rifle in Canada (the AR-15 - remember the link I provided a few pages back?), just not the Norinco 97-A or a variety of other assault rifles.

So as far as I see it, Canadians have the best of both worlds. Those who want assault rifles can uy AR-15s and the other more dangerous guns are banned.

The problem with that is is there is functionally no difference between a semi auto hunting rifle and a semi auto assault style rifle. Take a semi auto AK-74 and the AR-15 both fire 5.56mm bullets and both are semi automatic. The only real differences is the look. An assault rifle limited to semi auto has the same mechanisms as any other semi auto they just have such dangerous things such as pistol grips, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. The classification policy doesn't make any sense. Why shouldn't I be able to buy a semi-auto AK if I can by a functionally identical AR-15 or M14?

[ASLplease]

I think the NFA's concerns are valid. When a decision is made that results in property being confiscated, the decision makers need to come forward with enough rationale and evidence to justify their actions.

Heck we dont even have to agree with the many issues to agree with the NFA on this one.

[uwish]

why are some rifles prohibited because they are black? C-68 has very little to do with gun control. The Liberals were / continue to try and shrink the problem, make it some cumbersome that people either give up or don't bother.

[uwish]

and just as a side note, I know many people who have fully auto firearms. They were all grandfathered because they owned fully auto in the late 70's when they were banned.

The real kicker with those folks, while they legally own a 'prohibited' weapon and have been fully grandfathered CFO's will not issue an ATC to transport it to the range. No reason has ever been given, I know of several successful court cases where the owner has demanded an ATC and won.

So if you think there are no fully auto firearms in 'civies' hands, you would be wrong.

[ASLplease]

I see no reason why a responsible gun owner shouldnt be allowed to own a fully automatic weapon.

[bootlegga]

DeBoom DeBoom:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Guns were designed for use on the battlefield to kill soldiers, period. Any other uses that people came up with afterwards is another discussion. DVD players were designed for you to watch movies, not to bludgeon other people with. Baseball bats were designed to play a game. Lead pipes were designed for plumbing uses.

As I have already explained it doesn't matter what something was meant to do it matters what it is used to do. Let me ask you this: If someone was beating you over the head with a baseball bat would you be okay with that because the bat is was designed to play baseball? Obviously not because it is how it is being used that is important. The number of legal guns used in crimes in tiny compared to the number of legal guns in Canada. So why are we limiting what law abiding citizens can do just because of a few bad incidences? There is a clear double standard between guns and cars/alcohol/smoking/swimming pools.

Nope, no double standard at all. Not one of the items you mention was designed to kill people.

If you wanted to own an battle tank or fighter jet or navy frigate, I'd feel the same way. Military weapons belong in the hands of the military, not civvies.

DeBoom DeBoom:

$1:

I didn't think you wanted a discussion about registering everything that can kill a person if thrown at them. If that's the case, we'd pretty much have to register almost everything we own, from telephone books to pens to frying pans to you name it. Likewise, if we're going to talk about a registry for everything that could be used to commit a crime, then I'd guess that we'd spend 24 hours a day dealing with the bureaucracy of it.

Exactly my point. It is ludicrous to register every potentially deadly object even though knives are responsible for as many murders as guns are but we don't register them. There's a clear double standard here.

This argument is facetious to the point of absurdity.

DeBoom DeBoom:

bootlegga bootlegga:

The point is that nowadays, unless you are well connected in the criminal world, you aren't going to be able to buy an automatic weapon, which most people who use guns in the heat of the moment (like for school shootings - Dawson College, Taber, etc) do not have access to and/or aren't familiar with.

Prove me wrong and go buy yourself a Tec 9 or an AK-47.

I'm not saying you can just go out and buy one but it certainly isn't out of the question to get automatic weapons in Canada. With enough money and a little persistence its defiantly possible. Failing that one can always smuggle their own in.

Again, get one and prove me wrong.

DeBoom DeBoom:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I never said anything about his skill, just his intent.

Had he been better armed, Taber could easily have been much worse. If he had a Tec 9 like those douchebags in Columbine, maybe that teacher would have been killed trying to stop him. Or maybe he would have killed/wounded more people than the one he did, simply by spraying and praying.

He had a semi-auto, that's more than enough to stop anyone from charging and disarming a shooter. Spraying and praying would have most likely ended with 190 of his 200 rounds in the walls and ceilings and the other ten in people. Taking proper aim with a semi would have probably resulted in many more shot.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

DeBoom DeBoom:

bootlegga bootlegga:

And right there you show you don't know squat about gun control in Canada.

High capacity magazines (more than 5 rounds) are illegal in Canada, and have been since the Lepine massacre at Ecole Polytechinque.

And double taping magazines? All that usually accomplishes are bent feed mechanisms on the mags. Ask anyone real soldier how many double taped mags they've used. Everyone I've ever talked to laughs when they see someone do something that stupid in a movie.

I do know about the mag limit, in fact I discussed it in another post. Even if I didn't it doesn't matter at all to the point I was making. The 3 30 round mags could have been 18 5 round mags and it wouldn't change the substance of the post. And here's a shocker for you someone on a shooting spree might not care what the law says.

And here's another shocker, some whacko who has 18 5 round mags will have to reload a lot more often than someone with 3 30 round mags, meaning there are more chances to disarm said whacko. The 5 round mag rule is a good one IMHO.

Besides, if all you responsible gun owners are going hunting (or whatever you plan on doing) with assault rifles, why would you need more than 5 rounds?

DeBoom DeBoom:

So I made a small spelling mistake, you should have been able to figure it out from the context of the post what I was trying to say.

Do you care to address the argument or just pick on spelling mistakes?

I already admitted I mis-interpreted what you wrote. However, when you make a mistake like that and post it both ways, it can be interpreted either way.

[PluggyRug]

Anti-gun advocates seem to be frightened of something, they also seem to be lacking in a plausible explanation of that fear.

[DerbyX]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Anti-gun advocates seem to be frightened of something, they also seem to be lacking in a plausible explanation of that fear.

Plausible Pluggy? I think they have plenty of good arguments. Here is what they fear.



and this:



Now I might agree with owning rifles for hunting and under certain circumstances (and specific places) owning a handgun for self defence but civies owning assault weapons is just plain wrong.

No civilian under any circumstance needs an assault weapon nor should ever own one. If they can then why can't others own a RPG (to counter the inevitable increase in criminal weaponry). Hell I want to drive to work in an M1A1 Abrams and be allowed to fire on the asshole that cut me off because I'm not sure he isn't packing a satchel charge to blow my ass off.

Gun owners demanding access to high powered weaponry simply means they aren't mature enough to handle any firearm. The need for self defence is achieved by pretty much any gun capable of firing a bullet. You don't need to own a gun capable of knocking down attack helicopters and if you find yourself in that situation you need to book the first flight out of downtown Kandahar.

Recall that many gun proponents seem to think that if Leslie Mahaffy or Holly Jones had been allowed to carry a gun they'd still be alive.

Of course they would because we all know countries that allow this:

are among the safest in the world.

[DeBoom]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Nope, no double standard at all. Not one of the items you mention was designed to kill people.

So? The vast, vast majority aren't used to kill people. As I have said before purpose doesn't matter, use does. It doesn't make sense to ban something that more than 99% of are used in such a manner that doesn't cause harm and that criminals will acquire dispite being prohibited from doing so.

$1:

If you wanted to own an battle tank or fighter jet or navy frigate, I'd feel the same way. Military weapons belong in the hands of the military, not civvies.

Except your examples aren't weapons. I don't have a problem with someone owning a CF-18 as long as they have the training and license to fly it.

$1:

DeBoom DeBoom:

$1:

I didn't think you wanted a discussion about registering everything that can kill a person if thrown at them. If that's the case, we'd pretty much have to register almost everything we own, from telephone books to pens to frying pans to you name it. Likewise, if we're going to talk about a registry for everything that could be used to commit a crime, then I'd guess that we'd spend 24 hours a day dealing with the bureaucracy of it.

Exactly my point. It is ludicrous to register every potentially deadly object even though knives are responsible for as many murders as guns are but we don't register them. There's a clear double standard here.

This argument is facetious to the point of absurdity.

How so? You are suggesting that guns should be heavily regulated because they can kill people, yet all those other objects can. Knives are responsible for as many deaths as firearms yet they aren't registered or regulated to the extent guns are. And for the record my main complaint with firearms registration is that the resources dedicated to it vastly out weigh its usefulness.

bootlegga bootlegga:

DeBoom DeBoom:

bootlegga bootlegga:

The point is that nowadays, unless you are well connected in the criminal world, you aren't going to be able to buy an automatic weapon, which most people who use guns in the heat of the moment (like for school shootings - Dawson College, Taber, etc) do not have access to and/or aren't familiar with.

Prove me wrong and go buy yourself a Tec 9 or an AK-47.

I'm not saying you can just go out and buy one but it certainly isn't out of the question to get automatic weapons in Canada. With enough money and a little persistence its defiantly possible. Failing that one can always smuggle their own in.

Again, get one and prove me wrong.

Winning an internet argument isn't worth potentially getting arrested but I will share this story from across the pond. The UK has stricter gun laws and doesn't share a border with the US. If it can happen there it can defiantly happen here.

bootlegga bootlegga:

DeBoom DeBoom:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I never said anything about his skill, just his intent.

Had he been better armed, Taber could easily have been much worse. If he had a Tec 9 like those douchebags in Columbine, maybe that teacher would have been killed trying to stop him. Or maybe he would have killed/wounded more people than the one he did, simply by spraying and praying.

He had a semi-auto, that's more than enough to stop anyone from charging and disarming a shooter. Spraying and praying would have most likely ended with 190 of his 200 rounds in the walls and ceilings and the other ten in people. Taking proper aim with a semi would have probably resulted in many more shot.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

In other words you have no counter argument but don't want to concede the argument.

bootlegga bootlegga:

And here's another shocker, some whacko who has 18 5 round mags will have to reload a lot more often than someone with 3 30 round mags, meaning there are more chances to disarm said whacko. The 5 round mag rule is a good one IMHO.

First none of this addresses the actual point I raised that automatic weapons are no more dangerous than semi autos. How about sticking to the actual points raised instead of nitpicking one tiny and irrelevant point an entire paragraph of argument.

So please respond to the actual argument:

Lets say the shooter brought 90 rounds [sentence edited from original post to simplify and avoid tangent of mag size]. He could pick people off one by one on semi by either firing one round per target or double tapping or he could spray bullets hoping to hit something. With the bullets he brought he could kill 45 people by double tapping or 18 if he manages to limit his fire to sort aimed bursts of 5 round on auto (something your average school shooter probably wont have the disciple to do). Furthermore do you think most psychotic shooters/criminals are going to lay down several several grand for an automatic assault rifle when they could buy a semi auto rifle or pistol for a few hundred buck? There just doesn't seem to be enough benefit to make autos illegal.

Furthermore in this hypothetical scenario the shooter acquired automatic weapons at which time he would probably acquire larger mags to facilitate using auto.

Second many guns require the mag to be of a certain size to work with the gun. Such mags often just have something blocking them so they can't go past 5 or 10 rounds. If someone knew what they were doing it wouldn't be hard to remove the blockage. It also isn't that hard to make home made mags. All they are is a piece of sheet metal and a spring. Or do like most criminals and use smuggled weapons and mags.

$1:

Besides, if all you responsible gun owners are going hunting (or whatever you plan on doing) with assault rifles, why would you need more than 5 rounds?

Well if you are going to a range to shoot 120 rounds it is a lot easier to use 4 30 round mags than 24 5 round mags. Buy that many mags can be costly. The other alternative is waste time loading mags over and over again. Why should I have to waste my time and money so anti-gun people can have an illusionary sense of security? None of this stops someone who is planning on committing a crime going down to the States and buying a bunch of 30 round mags. Its a feel good measure and nothing more.

And once again you are asking the wrong question. The burden of proof should be on those advocating for the restrictions on what law abiding citizens can do and own to demonstrate the necessity of such restrictions.

[ASLplease]

DerbyX DerbyX:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Anti-gun advocates seem to be frightened of something, they also seem to be lacking in a plausible explanation of that fear.

Plausible Pluggy? I think they have plenty of good arguments. Here is what they fear.



and this:



Now I might agree with owning rifles for hunting and under certain circumstances (and specific places) owning a handgun for self defence but civies owning assault weapons is just plain wrong.

No civilian under any circumstance needs an assault weapon nor should ever own one. If they can then why can't others own a RPG (to counter the inevitable increase in criminal weaponry). Hell I want to drive to work in an M1A1 Abrams and be allowed to fire on the asshole that cut me off because I'm not sure he isn't packing a satchel charge to blow my ass off.

Gun owners demanding access to high powered weaponry simply means they aren't mature enough to handle any firearm. The need for self defence is achieved by pretty much any gun capable of firing a bullet. You don't need to own a gun capable of knocking down attack helicopters and if you find yourself in that situation you need to book the first flight out of downtown Kandahar.

Recall that many gun proponents seem to think that if Leslie Mahaffy or Holly Jones had been allowed to carry a gun they'd still be alive.

Of course they would because we all know countries that allow this:

are among the safest in the world.[/quot
e]
NEWS FLASH! This is Canada!

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

NEWS FLASH! This is Canada!

And we aim to keep it that way by preventing the very type of gun ownership you advocate. Assault weapons for anybody who wants one?

We had that before. We called it WW1 and WW2.

[DeBoom]

DerbyX DerbyX:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Anti-gun advocates seem to be frightened of something, they also seem to be lacking in a plausible explanation of that fear.

Plausible Pluggy? I think they have plenty of good arguments. Here is what they fear.

[youtube of North Hollywood shooting]

and this:

[youtube of Columbine]

This is your best evidence? A shooting where over a thousand rounds were fire but no one but the shooters were killed and a school attack that was originally going to be a bombing and committed with semi-autos? Hardly a compelling reason to limit law abiding gun owners.

$1:

Now I might agree with owning rifles for hunting and under certain circumstances (and specific places) owning a handgun for self defence but civies owning assault weapons is just plain wrong.

The problem with that is there is no function difference between this:

and this:

or the semi auto version of this:

All are semi automatic rifles capable of shooting as fast as you can pull the trigger but the top M1 is non-restricted, the AR-15 is restricted and the AK is prohibited. The AR-15 would make a fine hunting rifle for smaller animals but it is illegal to do so not for any functional reason but because it is a scary looking gun.

How does having a pistol grip, a bayonet lug or flash suppressor make the weapon more dangerous? In fact the AR-15 has the smallest round that has the shortest range, causes the smallest wounds and has the least armor penetrating ability of the three rifles pictured above. If the current firearms laws were in any way rational the AR-15 would be less restricted than the M1 because it has less dangerous ammunition. Besides a lot of hunting rifles were once military rifles.

$1:

No civilian under any circumstance needs an assault weapon nor should ever own one. If they can then why can't others own a RPG (to counter the inevitable increase in criminal weaponry). Hell I want to drive to work in an M1A1 Abrams and be allowed to fire on the asshole that cut me off because I'm not sure he isn't packing a satchel charge to blow my ass off.

Its not about need its about not unduely restricting law abiding citizens over a class of weapons that doesn't even make sense. There is no need to prevent someone from owning an AR-15 when it is functionally identical to any semi auto hunting rifle. Why should I not be able to shoot an AK or an AR-15 at a rifle range because someone thinks its a scary gun that I don't need. In a free society the the burden of proof should rest with those attempting to ban something. Show me the necessity of stopping me from buying an AK-47.

Why shouldn't someone be able to own a RPG if they keep only use it on a range, have the training to use it, have no criminal record and store it securely? By all means regulate when, where, how and by who a RPG can be used and owned but don't stop people who are no threat to society from owning one.

$1:

Gun owners demanding access to high powered weaponry simply means they aren't mature enough to handle any firearm. The need for self defence is achieved by pretty much any gun capable of firing a bullet. You don't need to own a gun capable of knocking down attack helicopters and if you find yourself in that situation you need to book the first flight out of downtown Kandahar.

First a .30-06 hunting rifle is much more high powered than an AR-15 or any other 5.56mm "assault rifle". Second how is it immature to own an AR-15 or an AK-47? They are no different from a semi auto hunting rifle. What if I wanted to own one to maintain and build upon my skills with the AR-15 family of rifles because the military doesn't give me much range time? Third not all guns are suitable for self defense I wouldn't want to use a musket or any other single shot gun against someone with a glock or even two thugs with knives. In both those cases I'd want a semi automatic or maybe a pump action shot gun.

$1:

Recall that many gun proponents seem to think that if Leslie Mahaffy or Holly Jones had been allowed to carry a gun they'd still be alive.

Of course they would because we all know countries that allow this:

are among the safest in the world.

Just because I think responsible adults should be able to own and use guns must mean I must be infavour of ten yearolds packing heat. Now who's being the immature one?

Countries with child soldiers might not be the safest but countries like this are:

Switzerland has a very low murder rate even though everyone has an automatic assault rifle in their house. Having guns doesn't cause violence, poverty, gangs, drug prohibition and lousy social conditions do.

[DeBoom]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ASLplease ASLplease:

NEWS FLASH! This is Canada!

And we aim to keep it that way by preventing the very type of gun ownership you advocate. Assault weapons for anybody who wants one?

We had that before. We called it WW1 and WW2.

Switzerland has it and its called buisness as usual yet the streets aren't running red with blood.

[DerbyX]

DeBoom DeBoom:

DerbyX DerbyX:

ASLplease ASLplease:

NEWS FLASH! This is Canada!

And we aim to keep it that way by preventing the very type of gun ownership you advocate. Assault weapons for anybody who wants one?

We had that before. We called it WW1 and WW2.

Switzerland has it and its called buisness as usual yet the streets aren't running red with blood.

Somalia has liberal gun laws and they are swimming in violence. So is any place that has no gun laws.

Allowing rifle and some pistol ownership is one thing. Allowing anybody to own assault weapons is something else. If you gun owner types cannot differentiate the 2 then your cause is lost because we will not allow Canada to become a Somalia because a few small penis individuals think they need to own an automatic rifle to compensate.